Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Thurs nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts with FREE Prizes!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE Live AFA Seminar! See locations and details.


Scam free! Check out Christian Filipina - Meet Asian women with Christian values! Members screened.
Exclusive book offer! 75% off! How to Meet, Date and Marry Your Filipina Wife



View Active Topics       Latest 100 Topics       View Your Posts       FAQ Topics       Switch to Mobile


Virgins in America, Russia, and Ukraine

Discuss and talk about any general topic.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

Postby publicduende » Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:36 am

Jester wrote:
publicduende wrote:...what happens when you crash against the simple realisation that even a majority of 16 years olds will have had a couple of boyfriends, fooled around and probably had penetrative sex? ....


You are conjuring phony statistics. Most 16-year-old girls who are not married or engaged, are indeed virgins. Period.

The world is bigger than you think.


My bad, I should have been clearer. I was talking about US teenagers, as both Tsar and Magnum are American. Of course everyone could go abroad looking for virgin teenagers, knocking on house doors or hanging around the local high schools...the kind of stuff that would make even Roosh look like a mature playboy :lol:
Last edited by publicduende on Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
publicduende
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2630
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:20 pm







Postby publicduende » Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:38 am

Tsar wrote:
magnum wrote:All I want is a woman who will give me her body mind and heart, and I will do the same in return.


magnum wrote:another reason I'm in such a hurry to get hitched, women have a expiration date if you want one that's pure and not emotionally and physically spent.


I want much of the same. A girl that's pure, able to bond emotionally, warm heart, and not comparing me. Women do have an expiration date. It's best to go for the younger women.

I don't care what other people think. I might be a nice guy but I don't let society control me and I won't be pushed around. I don't care if I have to break "political correctness" or the status quo to get what I want out of life. The people that get what they want and make their dreams a reality do what they want regardless of society's unwritten rules. If society, liberals, feminists, or the common American ever wanted to judge me because I will eventually be dating a younger woman I wouldn't care. I would know they were jealous and that I was being a true alpha by defying the status quo. As long as my intentions are honorable I don't care about breaking any of society's rules.

publicduende wrote:What you refer to when you say young virgins are "more impressionable" is precisely that kind of innocence and naivety that makes the girl more vulnerable, not happier, and her relationship with you one of silent acceptance, subservience and one-way dependency, certainly not mutual respect and understanding.


When a young virgin is impressionable that means she could go in either direction. A good man can help her become respectable, moral, and retain her compassion. A bad boy would corrupt her and and using her just to "score." I wouldn't say that the young virgin wouldn't be happy with a good man. I know any girl would be very happy to be with me if she knew me.


Look, I know you and Magnum have good intentions. Still, one has to live in the present. Girls of yesteryear were, on average, more mature and virtuous because society forced them to grow up quickly through hardship and discipline, and prepared them for their role of wives and mothers by that age. They had no other opportunities, no other choice.

Girls have choices now. Just like the boys, they can enjoy life a lot more, go to school and university and express their passions and abilities in the same arenas as their male counterparts, explore the world and the fabric of society, get their hands dirty and learn from mistakes as well as successes. So let's not be unnecessarily prudish: engaging in sexual activity of some description at some point after puberty, with all the good and bad that comes with it, is just as part of growing up as it is climbing trees, being bullied and fighting back, crying at the movies and swallowing a bad mark at school.

Don't want to sound like Mr. Miyagi now, but if the girl has been nested in a solid, loving and balanced family, chances are she will have been given the kind of upbringing and moral coordinates to pursue her ambitions without forgetting that her biology will at some point scream for a stable love and motherhood, and live her sexual life without having to turn into a mindless slut. Most of my high school classmates in a mid-size town in Southern Italy (not quite the liberated metropolis) had their first sexual experiences between 15 and 17, like me. And I'm sure they had their fair share of successful and failed relationships, and perhaps a few flings in between. None of them have turned into sluts or feminist militants from hell. And I could tell that would be the case without having to track their moves, because I knew most of their families, and knew what kind of "moral antibodies" against depravation they had.

So, you're right about a girl's innocence leading her to either direction. The point is, those directions should have been given much earlier, since childhood, and by her own family. The idea of a "mature boyfriend" imposing himself as an additional role model in exchange for a full relationship, obviously involving sex, is a common myth circulating among paedophiles or socially/sexually impaired men.

I know your intentions are honourable. However, it's much better to look for a girl, not necessarily a virgin, who had a good family upbringing and has the maturity and judgment to enter a happy relationship with a man a few years her senior, than try to woo an immature teenager in the hope to "freeze" her in her virginal purity.
User avatar
publicduende
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2630
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:20 pm

Postby eurobrat » Fri Feb 22, 2013 5:26 pm

...
Last edited by eurobrat on Sat May 25, 2013 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
eurobrat
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2252
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 9:18 am

Postby stillcode » Fri Feb 22, 2013 5:38 pm

Wow. I'm surprised no one here has mentioned yet the higher divorce rate among non-virgins who lost their virginity to another partner.

*IF* you are going to marry someone, then virginity is very important. It is perhaps the most important indicator on the long term success of your marriage.

The following data was presented by TheSocialPathologist which is the result of the Heritage Foundation using data from the CDC.

Image

http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/201 ... -slut.html

Notice that if a woman has had even 1 other person that she's slept with before marriage the chance of divorce is nearly 50%. Two or more men and you are on the losing side of a bet.

If you want to avoid divorce, just don't get married. But, if you absolutely must get married, then I can only recommend you marry a virgin and even then your chances of divorce are still about 20%.
stillcode
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:01 pm

Postby eurobrat » Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:02 pm

...
Last edited by eurobrat on Sat May 25, 2013 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
eurobrat
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2252
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 9:18 am

Postby stillcode » Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:08 pm

Like I said, they are from the Heritage Foundation using data from the Center for Disease Control. You can read his whole series on "Defining Slut".
stillcode
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:01 pm

Postby eurobrat » Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:24 pm

...
Last edited by eurobrat on Sat May 25, 2013 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
eurobrat
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2252
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 9:18 am

Postby abcdavid01 » Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:14 pm

I don't think even American 16 year olds are that bad. Besides, you can usually guess who's a virgin and who's not.

I get what you mean about maturity publicduende. Like I said, my last relationship didn't work out because she was too emotionally immature for me. I still care about virginity though. I just don't want to adapt to what I see as societal decadence. I mean, I don't think most women should be going for anything but Mrs. Degrees. It's not necessarily that I think women are less intelligent. Just that they naturally make decisions emotionally, which is a recipe for disaster in most traditionally male careers.

It's important to remember these things aren't mutually exclusive. Someone can still be very mature and care about virginity. I've known at least two girls like that. One had other problems and I fear she'll wind up a single mother. The other was pretty much my dream girl. Or at least as far as I've seen, though going by what Jester said she may only be half as good as what's out there. Probably the type Tsar would like too, though I agree it helps to have emotional maturity. Sexual maturity I'm not sure I agree with.

I mean, my first kiss on the lips was when I was eight and I kissed my thirty year old babysitter. I'm not a prude, but I have a certain set of values.

I'm not exactly religious, or maybe I can say I'm reluctantly religious, but if I were here's what I'd say: Sex has two roles, procreation and pleasure. I don't disagree with the sexual libertines on this. Yet disassociating the two just seems sterile. So I can understand Catholics like Tsar not liking contraceptives, which again I know are pretty ancient. I also think people should be sexually active as soon as they become sexually developed. If God didn't mean for thirteen year olds to have sex then he wouldn't allow them to. Could someone argue that's just God's test against temptation? Well that just sounds ridiculous. The real problem is that there aren't safe institutions for sex. To me, teen pregnancy isn't a problem, but the fact that we have a society that arrests development is. Teenagers in Western societies aren't raised to be mature enough for it. Besides, in older eras it wasn't as if teen mothers were all on their own anyway. This leads back to the idea of the disillusion of the family. Again, we have a society where kids are treated like kids for eighteen years then pushed out of the house. In a different era it would have been that kids matured much faster, but stayed in the family household much longer. I wish there was still a more transactional role for marriage. This doesn't necessarily preclude the role of love. But there are two choices in modern Western society: adapt, or put off having sex. I choose the latter in hope of riding out the storm. I don't think a society that promotes the current type of sexuality is sustainable in the long term. It's a Sexual Communism that reflects a further Communization of all aspects of society. Just one manifestation of the zeitgeist.
中国人万岁! 中国美女万岁!
abcdavid01
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1580
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:52 am
Location: On the run

Postby Tsar » Sat Feb 23, 2013 2:18 am

I agree that sex is for procreation and pleasure but it's also for bonding. I know my beliefs are unique among the current mainstream views but I can't and won't compromise.

"Good always triumphs over evil in the end, people who follow the path of goodness generally succeed."
-Unknown

Just because it's expected that men should accept women regardless of their sex histories doesn't mean I will. I know it's unusual for someone my age to reject a girl over that but I would. Why should I conform to expectations that I do not agree with? I won't conform, I will resist society's wrong expectations. I know that in the end because I am a good person, I will triumph over an evil society.

I have brought up a similar divorce chart from the same website. The women with zero non-marital sex partners have about 86% stable stable marriage rates.

Bringing up Sexual Communism a good point. Women are meant to have fidelity to one man. Fidelity and virginity are two traits that according to tradition women are suppose to give to one man.
Tsar
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 7:40 pm

Postby Tsar » Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:36 am

Tsar
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 7:40 pm

Postby Jester » Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:43 am

eurobrat wrote:
As I was staying in my Swiss hostel a few months ago in the boy's bathroom they had a machine that carried condoms, lubricant, and even disposable dildos and other women's sex toys.

So that's just one example on how other society's treat casual sex.



Dee SSSHVISSS do it daht vay?! Vell den! Dat shettels dat, by Gott und Himmel!

Vee mussen doen dat shame ting!!
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7866
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Postby Jester » Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:53 am

abcdavid01 wrote:
I'm not exactly religious, or maybe I can say I'm reluctantly religious, but if I were here's what I'd say: Sex has two roles, procreation and pleasure. I don't disagree with the sexual libertines on this. Yet disassociating the two just seems sterile. So I can understand Catholics like Tsar not liking contraceptives, which again I know are pretty ancient. I also think people should be sexually active as soon as they become sexually developed. If God didn't mean for thirteen year olds to have sex then he wouldn't allow them to. Could someone argue that's just God's test against temptation? Well that just sounds ridiculous. The real problem is that there aren't safe institutions for sex. To me, teen pregnancy isn't a problem, but the fact that we have a society that arrests development is. Teenagers in Western societies aren't raised to be mature enough for it. Besides, in older eras it wasn't as if teen mothers were all on their own anyway. This leads back to the idea of the disillusion of the family. Again, we have a society where kids are treated like kids for eighteen years then pushed out of the house. In a different era it would have been that kids matured much faster, but stayed in the family household much longer. I wish there was still a more transactional role for marriage. This doesn't necessarily preclude the role of love. But there are two choices in modern Western society: adapt, or put off having sex. I choose the latter in hope of riding out the storm. I don't think a society that promotes the current type of sexuality is sustainable in the long term. It's a Sexual Communism that reflects a further Communization of all aspects of society. Just one manifestation of the zeitgeist.


+100

PS But.... :cry:

disillusion ---> dissolution
transactional ---> transitional

pssst - spellcheck is your enemy!

Not trying to be an asshole here...

...it just comes naturally.
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7866
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Postby Jester » Sat Feb 23, 2013 6:00 am

Tsar wrote:I agree that sex is for procreation and pleasure but it's also for bonding.

Great point.

Tsar wrote:I know my beliefs are unique among the current mainstream views but I can't and won't compromise.

Good!

Tsar wrote:"Good always triumphs over evil in the end, people who follow the path of goodness generally succeed."
-Unknown

....I know that in the end because I am a good person, I will triumph over an evil society.

Nope. Totally wrong. Common misconception, though.

It pleased God to make a real physical world, where his people have to strive and fight in order to triumph. If you want to see how God makes a miracle, watch the movie "Zulu".

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOoCrCeHxpI[/youtube]

Or if you want to see a great movie about Free Will in the context of innocent young love, I reccomend "A Little Romance". Watching this fan-made trailer from 7:30 on gives the basic idea of this poetic movie:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL1aohaqjYg[/youtube]

So the point is, no you will NOT win because you are good.

You are good.......... so go win.
Last edited by Jester on Sat Feb 23, 2013 6:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7866
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Postby abcdavid01 » Sat Feb 23, 2013 6:12 am

Jester wrote:
abcdavid01 wrote:
I'm not exactly religious, or maybe I can say I'm reluctantly religious, but if I were here's what I'd say: Sex has two roles, procreation and pleasure. I don't disagree with the sexual libertines on this. Yet disassociating the two just seems sterile. So I can understand Catholics like Tsar not liking contraceptives, which again I know are pretty ancient. I also think people should be sexually active as soon as they become sexually developed. If God didn't mean for thirteen year olds to have sex then he wouldn't allow them to. Could someone argue that's just God's test against temptation? Well that just sounds ridiculous. The real problem is that there aren't safe institutions for sex. To me, teen pregnancy isn't a problem, but the fact that we have a society that arrests development is. Teenagers in Western societies aren't raised to be mature enough for it. Besides, in older eras it wasn't as if teen mothers were all on their own anyway. This leads back to the idea of the disillusion of the family. Again, we have a society where kids are treated like kids for eighteen years then pushed out of the house. In a different era it would have been that kids matured much faster, but stayed in the family household much longer. I wish there was still a more transactional role for marriage. This doesn't necessarily preclude the role of love. But there are two choices in modern Western society: adapt, or put off having sex. I choose the latter in hope of riding out the storm. I don't think a society that promotes the current type of sexuality is sustainable in the long term. It's a Sexual Communism that reflects a further Communization of all aspects of society. Just one manifestation of the zeitgeist.


+100

PS But.... :cry:

disillusion ---> dissolution
transactional ---> transitional

pssst - spellcheck is your enemy!

Not trying to be an asshole here...

...it just comes naturally.


Technically disillusion and transactional work in those contexts without changing the meaning. By transactional I meant bride prices and the like. Disillusion refers to the family being a social construct. Still, I use a tablet, so typing's a little harder, but it's a worthy trade off.
中国人万岁! 中国美女万岁!
abcdavid01
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1580
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:52 am
Location: On the run

Postby Adama » Tue May 28, 2013 7:44 pm

Look at these two guys, PublicDuende and DJFourmoney. These are two of the biggest f***ing Manginas I have ever seen post who didnt outright claim to be Hugo-type male feminists. Simply unbelievable. The good part is, they are a good sounding board for the other men to make rebuttals. But from now on, if there is a post by either of these two, I will be skipping them.
Look for women who automatically want to please you because it pleases them. Any woman who seeks to please her man is a treasure. Even better if you don't have to ask but rather suggest.
User avatar
Adama
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 3949
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 9:37 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests